see item #4...

Forwarded message:
>From owner-linguist@TAMVM1.TAMU.EDU Mon Nov 21 11:54:23 1994
Message-Id: <9411211754.AA26181@astrid.ling.nwu.edu>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 1994 11:45:19 -0600
Reply-To: The Linguist List <linguist@tamsun.tamu.edu>
Sender: The LINGUIST Discussion List <LINGUIST@tamvm1.tamu.edu>
From: The Linguist List <linguist@tamsun.tamu.edu>
Subject: 5.1336 Qs: Center-embedding, Punctuation, Versification, Greek
To: Multiple recipients of list LINGUIST <LINGUIST@tamvm1.tamu.edu>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-5-1336. Mon 21 Nov 1994. ISSN: 1068-4875. Lines: 212
Subject: 5.1336 Qs: Center-embedding, Punctuation, Versification, Greek
Moderators: Anthony Rodrigues Aristar: Texas A&M U. <aristar@tam2000.tamu.edu>
Helen Dry: Eastern Michigan U. <hdry@emunix.emich.edu>
Asst. Editors: Ron Reck <rreck@emunix.emich.edu>
Ann Dizdar <dizdar@tamsun.tamu.edu>
Ljuba Veselinova <lveselin@emunix.emich.edu>
Liz Bodenmiller <eboden@emunix.emich.edu>
REMINDER
[We'd like to remind readers that the responses to queries are usually
best posted to the individual asking the question. That individual is
then strongly encouraged to post a summary to the list. This policy was
instituted to help control the huge volume of mail on LINGUIST; so we
would appreciate your cooperating with it whenever it seems appropriate.]
-------------------------Directory-------------------------------------
1)
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 94 10:30:27 EST
From: "Rick Lewis" (rick@clarity.Princeton.EDU)
Subject: center-embedding in Mandarin
2)
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 1994 14:48:08 CET+1
From: MICHELOUD FRANCOIS-XAVIER (93406882@pcbf1servcei.unil.ch)
Subject: ponctuation signs with expressive contents
3)
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 94 09:11:28 EST
From: amr@ares.cs.wayne.edu
Subject: Q: Deep/Abstract Phonology and Versification
4)
Date: 21 Nov 94 09:16:39 EST
From: Barbara Beard (73131.3101@compuserve.com)
Subject: Ancient Greek Relative Clauses
-------------------------Messages--------------------------------------
1)
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 94 10:30:27 EST
From: "Rick Lewis" (rick@clarity.Princeton.EDU)
Subject: center-embedding in Mandarin
I'm working on a theory to account for contrasts between difficult and
acceptable embeddings cross-linguistically (I've compiled a list of about 50
relevant constructions so far), and the following sentences (a) and (b) have
been offered to me as possible examples of unacceptably difficult center
embeddings in Mandarin:
(a) Jeyge sh shuay si chi mi de laushu de mau
This is squish die eat rice of mouse of cat
(This is the cat that squished the mouse that ate the rice.)
(b) Jeyge sh chi chi mi de laushu de mau
This is eat eat rice of rat of cat
(This the cat that ate the rat that ate the rice).
(c) Jeyge sh chi mi de laushu
This is eat rice of rat
(This is the rat that ate the rice)
While (c) is perfectly acceptable. However, it might be the case that there
is an additional complicating factor in (b): the "chi chi" might be locally
ambiguous between two separate verbs and a contraction of "chi-i-chi", which
means something like "have a bite to eat".
So I have three specific questions (particulary for those native Mandarin
speakers on LINGUIST) and one general request:
1. Can "chi chi" in fact be momentarily interpreted as a contraction?
2. Are such local ambiguities generally unproblematic, or can they give rise
to garden path effects?
3. Does the comprehension difficulty remain with a sentence such as (a)
which I believe has the same structure as (b), but eliminates the
(possible) local ambiguity?
4. General request: Please send me your favorite examples of difficult
embeddings, or complex but acceptable embeddings.
Please respond to me directly, then I'll try to post some reasonable summary.
Thanks,
Rick Lewis
Richard L. Lewis
Princeton University Internet: rick@clarity.princeton.edu
Cognitive Science Laboratory Phone: +1 609 258 2821
221 Nassau Street Fax: +1 609 258 2682
Princeton, NJ 08544, USA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 1994 14:48:08 CET+1
From: MICHELOUD FRANCOIS-XAVIER (93406882@pcbf1servcei.unil.ch)
Subject: ponctuation signs with expressive contents
In an interview, the french sociologist Pierre Bourdieu complained
about the fact that there is no sign in french that permit to express
irony, smile, laughter and other graphic indications which could indicate how
the utterance should be taken. We just have interrogation and
exclamation. I have a list of the so-called
"smileys" used on e-mail,for instance :) to indicate smile, which
seem to be what Bourdieu spoke about, but I'm looking for the
equivalent in natural languages.
My questions are :
1) Do these ponctuation signs with expressive contents
have an accurate denomination in linguistic theory ?
2) Is there any litterature about these signs ?
3) Is there any language with more signs than the two I know (interrogation and
exclamation) as expressive content ?
I would welcome any advice on this subject
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 94 09:11:28 EST
From: amr@ares.cs.wayne.edu
Subject: Q: Deep/Abstract Phonology and Versification
I am trying to compile a complete bibliography of published
arguments that rules of versification may be sensitive to levels of
phonological representation deeper or more abstract than classical
phonemics. If anybody knows of any additions to be made to the
following, please let me know.
Anderson, Stephen R. 1973. _u_-umlaut and Skaldic verse. _A
festschrift for Morris Halle_, ed by Stephen R. Anderson and
Paul Kiparsky, 3-13. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Chen, Matthew Y (1984) "Abstract Symmetry in Chinese Verse,"
Linguistic Inquiry 15, 167-170.
Hayes, Bruce (1988) Metrics and phonological theory. In Frederick
J. Newmeyer (ed.) Linguistics: the Cambridge survey, II
(Linguistic Theory: Extensions and Implications. 220-249.
Kiparsky, Paul. 1968c. "Metrics and morphophonemics in the
Kalevala". Studies presented to to Professor Roman Jakobson
by his students, ed. by Charles E. Gribble, 137-48.
Cambridge: Slavica.
Kiparsky, Paul (1972) Metrics and morphophonemics in the Rigveda.
In Michael Brame (ed.) Contributions to generative phonology.
Austin: University of Texas Press.
Kiparsky, Paul (1973) The role of linguistics in a theory of
poetry. Daedalus, Summer 1973: Linguistics as a Human Problem.
Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences
102(3): 231-244.
Malone, Joseph L. (1982) Generative phonology and Turkish rhyme.
Linguistic Inquiry 13, 550-553.
Malone, Joseph L. (1983) Generative phonology and the metrical
behavior of u- 'and' in the Hebrew poetry of medieval Spain.
Journal of the American Oriental Society 103, 369-381.
Malone, Joseph L. (1988a) On the global-phonologic nature of
Classical Irish alliteration. General Linguistics 28. 91-103.
Malone, Joseph L. (1988b) Underspecification theory and Turkish
rhyme. Phonology 5. 293-297.
O'Connor, M. P. (1982) "Unanswerable the knack of tongues": The
linguistic study of verse. In: Loraine K. Obler & Lise Menn
(eds.) Exceptional language and linguistics. New York:
Academic Press. 143-168.
Schane, S. A. 1968. French phonology and morphology. Cambridge,
Mass.: MIT Press.
Watkins, Calvert (1963) Indo-European metrics and Archaic Irish
verse. Celtica 6, 194-249.
Zeps, Valdis J. 1963. The meter of the so-called trochaic
Latvian folksongs. International journal of Slavic
linguistics and poetics 7: 123-128.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
4)
Date: 21 Nov 94 09:16:39 EST
From: Barbara Beard (73131.3101@compuserve.com)
Subject: Ancient Greek Relative Clauses
I am investigating what has traditionally been called "case attraction" between
the (Homeric, Attic, and Koine) Greek relative pronoun and its antecedent.
This has been explained as a correlative pronoun having its case assigned by
the antecedent NP of the main clause followed by an omitted relative marker
in the embedded clause. This results in what appears to be a relative
pronoun being attracted to the case of the antecedent. This explanation
seems fairly straight forward from an historical linguistics viewpoint. I
would like to know what evidence there is of a caseless relative marker in
ancient Greek. There are all kinds of (pardon the hyperbole) uninflected
particles in ancient Greek. Could any of these have been derived from a
caseless relative marker? Are there any other syntactic explanations for
the so-called case attraction? I am aware of the exegetical/hermeneutical
(basically, semantic) explanations, but what about syntactic perspectives
which allow for the application of GB Case Theory?
I appreciate very much any responses you could send my way. I will, of course,
post a summary after an appropriate time for analysis. Thank you!
Mike Beard
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-5-1336.